February 23, 2017

Among many recent structured settlement industry developments, perhaps the most significant and impressive has been the continuation of sustained primary market annuity sales growth - especially in the context of various industry challenges. These challenges have included: 1) the aftermath of the ELNY insolvency; 2) continuation of historic low interest rates; 3) public exposure of unsavory secondary market business practices; and 4) a generational transition within the structured settlement industry.

Despite these challenges, primary market annuity sales (on a comparative basis with prior years) totaled $5.73 billion in 2016 (based upon 24,750 cases with an average case size of $231,478) according to industry estimates compiled and recently distributed by Melissa Price. 2016 sales totals compare favorably, and show a steady increase, compared with similar sales totals for these prior years::

2015 - $5.35 billion

2014 - $5.25 billion

2013 - $5.13 billion

2012 - $4.82 billion

For the first time, Ms Price's 2016 report included structured settlement annuity sales by USAA. Although USAA is a member of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), it is S2KM's understanding that USAA is one of multiple "affiliated" life companies that limits its structured settlement sales to internal USAA claims only. Typically, because these companies don't compete for external business, they don't report their sales data.

Inclusive of USSA, 2016 structured settlement salestotaled $5.80 billion (based upon 25,201 cases with an average case size of $230,320. Even including USSA, the 2016 annual premium totals still fall short of the historic 12 month industry high ($6.2 billion in 2008) after consistently averaging close to $6 billion annually from 2001-2007.

It should also be noted, that while structured settlement premium has continued to increase since 2012, the number of structured cases has not noticeably increased - resulting in an ever-increasing average case size. This development may be explained by more structured settlement brokers transitioning to a settlement planning approach, which by definition targets larger cases. For example, Ringler, historically the largest U.S. structured settlement broker, has recently re-branded itself as "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Berkshire Hathaway continued its recent primary market leadership in 2016 by generating $1.504 billion of structured settlement annuity premium - a 15% percent increase from 2015. For the first time since 2011, two companies exceeded $1 billion in structured settlement annuity sales as Pacific Life increased its 2016 total to $1.186 billion from its year earlier total of $871MM - a 36% percent increase.

The U.S. structured settlement market now consists of nine NSSTA-member annuity providers who report their structured settlement annuity sales - down from more than 20 as recently as 2002. 2016 sales results (rounded in millions) for the seven other structured settlement annuity providers (per Ms Price's report) plus the rounded percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) from comparable 2015 results:

MetLife: $815MM (+6%)

Amgen: $688MM (+12%)

Liberty Life: $513MM (-6%)

New York Life: $487MM (+32%)

Prudential: $399MM (-48%)

Mutual of Omaha: $141MM (+44%)

USAA: $72MM (first report)

Ms Price's 2016 compilation also reports an annual increase in annuity premium for non-qualified structured settlement assignments (from $190.3 million in 2015 to $199.2 million in 2016) as a portion of the overall structured settlement numbers. Non-qualified assignments represent transfers of periodic payment obligations that do not meet the requirements of IRC sections 130 and 104(a)(1) or (2) including deferred attorney fees.

From S2KM's perspective, several factors help to explain the sustained primary market sales growth:

Increased Industry Unity - As former SSP President Neil Johnson pointed out in 2014, for many years, an historical lack of structured settlement industry unity created a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects." Recent leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP have encouraged greater cooperation and focused their associations on more productive projects.

SSP - As an organization, SSP is no longer a political advocate for injury victims' rights. As Joe Tombs, its current President, stated in this recent S2KM interview: "A year ago, we decided to abandon taking 'political' positions.'' Instead, Tombs added: "1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose NSSTA; and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our2017 Annual Conference."

NSSTA - Although NSSTA continues to advocate for structured settlements, NSSTA has likewise undertaken its own initiatives toward achieving greater industry unification. As identified by former NSSTA President Michael Goodman in 2014, these initiatives have included: 1) a strong relationship with the AAJ; 2) improved dialogue with the SSP; 3) guest educational participation involving SSP and NASP representatives; 4) successful cooperation with NASP to enact revised structured settlement protection legislation in multiple states.

Market Research - Among the structured settlement growth opportunities, expanded use by traditional stakeholders represents arguably the number one priority - a priority which NSSTA highlighted during 2014 by commissioning CLM Advisors to conduct a three-part survey of senior claims executives (Part 1); front line claims professionals (Part 2); and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3). For S2KM's summary and analysis of these surveys, see:

Transitional Goals- During NSSTA' 2015 Annual Meeting, Goodman announced a series of transitional growth-oriented goals for NSSTA and its members: 1) modifying NSSTA's traditional "protect and preserve" message to inspire primary market growth; 2) moving beyond "interest rate selling"; 3) moving beyond a focus on factoring; 4) identifying and pursuing new markets for structured settlement annuities; 5) adding one or more new life company providers; 6) engaging new, younger structured settlement brokers; 7) providing a new and improved training initiative.

Growth Initiative Committee - To help support these goals, NSSTA's Board of Directors established a new NSSTA "Industry Growth Initiative," "designed to identify opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements and bring those opportunities to the structured settlement industry marketplace." The first Growth Initiatives to be selected and approved:

Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements.

Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee proposed a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company.

Under current President Len Blonder and current Growth Committee Chair Sean Coleman, the number of Growth Initiatives continues to expand with assistance from new NSSTA Communications and Marketing Director Abbey Hudson.

Educational and Lobbying Support - To support its Growth Initiative, NSSTA has also expanded both its educational and certification programming as well as its strategic lobbying and lobbying partnerships. Educational Committee Co-Chairs Jordan Bossler and Nolan Robinson, CSSC Co-Chairs Karen Meyers and Patricia Fairhurst, and their respective committees, plus Compliance and Administrative Director Debbie Sink provide NSSTA with its strongest-ever group of educational resources. NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn, who also serves as Vice Chair of the American Association for People with Disabilities (AAPD) and manages the Congressional Structured Settlement Caucus , has continued to expand NSSTA's lobbying outreach thru strategic relationships with national special needs attorney associations.

Ms Price's reports do not provide information about the structured settlement secondary market. For S2KM's most recent estimates of secondary market metrics, see this prior blog post. Based upon industry sources, it is S2KM's understanding that structured settlement secondary market sales declined during 2016.

January 16, 2017

Based upon the history of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP), and the role of Richard Risk (an SSP founder and member) as one of the plaintiff attorneys, structured settlement industry participants might assume that SSP, as an association, supports the recently filed AIG Class Action Lawsuit. When asked by S2KM, however, SSP President Joe Tombs provided an unexpected response. Tombs' detailed response appears below. For context, however, S2KM first provides a brief background summary plus a summary of the AIG Class Action allegations.

Historic Industry Divisions

Although some structured settlement industry pioneers, including the late David Ringler, the first President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) envisioned NSSTA as "a place where everyone and anyone [could] sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs", that utopian environment never fully materialized as multiple divisions developed within both the structured settlement market and the larger personal injury settlement consulting market. Examples include:

Plaintiff vs. defense structured settlement brokers.

Primary vs. secondary structured settlement markets.

Structured settlements vs. settlement planning.

Settlement annuities vs. settlement trusts.

Settlement planning vs. special needs planning.

Among other results, the structured settlement industry now has both a primary and a secondary market and structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have formed two national associations in addition to NSSTA: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and SSP. Although numerous and divisive issues have created serious political conflicts among these associations historically, leaders of all three associations have increasingly recognized and addressed the problems created by these conflicts.

During his three successive one year terms as SSP President, Immediate Past President Neil Johnson served as a powerful advocate for structured settlement industry unity. For example, as a guest speaker during NSSTA's 2014 Fall Conference, Johnson condemnedlack ofstructured settlementindustry unity as "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

At the same time, Johnson proposed a "solution" for achieving structured settlement industry unity including these core elements:

Recognizing and accepting product and professional diversity.

Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.

Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.

Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

Among other highlights and milestones, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) 2016 Annual Conference transferred association leadership from Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction, which focused on structured settlement "industry unity", and also, in a dramatic policy shift, to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

AIG Class Action Lawsuit

Earlier this month, three plaintiff attorneys, including SSP founder and current SSP member Richard Risk, filed a Class Action Complaint in United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Among its allegations, the Class Action Lawsuit accuses Defendant American International Group, Inc. (AIG), a NSSTA member, and several of its affiliates of: 1) RICO violations; 2) fraudulent conduct; and 3) unjust enrichment.

Although not named as Defendants, the Class Action Complaint also identifies multiple structured settlement brokers (most, if not all, members of NSSTA) who, according to the Complaint, are "known as 'Agency Partners' [and] have been on the AIG Approved Broker List within periods relevant to this Complaint, and are part of the racketeering enterprise at issue..."

Plaintiffs characterize the primary AIG business practice they allege is illegal as a "short-changing scheme" which they describe as follows: "Defendants’ practice to fail to disclose to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class numerous material facts concerning how AIG conducted its Structured Settlement Program including, among other things, that:

"Defendants participated in a short-changing scheme designed to allow them to recover the cost of their own structured settlement brokers, by deducting the brokers’ fees from that portion of the settlement that the settling parties had previously agreed would be one hundred percent (100%) invested in future payments;

"Defendants accomplished this “short-change” by bundling the amount of the broker’s commission—namely, four percent (4%)—into the illustrated annuity cost;

"Even when the broker’s fee was not 4%, AIG would keep for itself whatever portion of the commission was not paid to the broker; and,

"As a result of the scheme undertaken by Defendants, the actual financial value of the settlement was materially lower than the value represented to injury claimants since four percent (4%) of the full amount of cash to be invested in annuity was, in fact, diverted by AIG to pay for its own Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers."

Other Plaintiff allegations:

"AIG uses a structured settlement annuity software and quoting system that is represented by it and the Approved Brokers (and In-House Brokers) as illustrating future projected payments based on the amount of funds previously agreed between the settling parties to be invested in the annuity. But this representation is not true, because it does not reflect the commission that is paid to the broker, which is hidden in the cost or present value of the annuity communicated to the claimant or claimant’s attorney."

"In fact, AIG trains its employees in the Structured Settlement Program, as well as its Approved Brokers and In-House Brokers, not to disclose to claimants (or their attorneys when retained) the fact that the broker’s fee is bundled into the represented annuity investment cost."

"AIG’s employees, its Approved Brokers, and In-House Brokers are also trained to conceal this scheme, in the event of claimant inquiries about the payment of commissions, by avoiding a direct answer to the question or, sometimes, by indicating that payment of annuity premiums from the defendant’s AIG-affiliated liability insurer to American General avoids commission as a cost to claimant."

"The AIG Approved Brokers are also required to fund periodic payments with an American General or other AIG-related annuity, if at all possible. This requirement is called the 'first and last right of refusal'.”

The Complaint includes a footnote #1 (page 1) explaining/alleging that: 1) most structured settlement "producers" are inappropriately referred to as "brokers" when in fact they are "agents" appointed by life insurance companies; 2) Use of the term "broker" is misleading and communicates a false duty of loyalty to the consumer/injury victim; 3) although a producer may hold a life agent's license, he/she cannot bind the life company when writing an annuity application; and 4) this distinction becomes important for defining a racketeering "enterprise" under the RICO Act when considering the relationship of structured settlement producers to issuers.

SSP President Joe Tombs Responds

Based upon the political history of the SSP, and role of Risk as plaintiff attorney, the AIG Class Action Lawsuit appears to present a significant test for SSP - especially in light of Immediate Past President Neil Johnson's advocacy for structured settlement unity and current President Joe Tombs' promise for SSP to avoid structured settlement politics. When asked by S2KM whether or not SSP supports the AIG Class Action Lawsuit, however, Tombs provided the following response (with S2KM emphasis):

"We are neutral – SSP has no position at all and we will not take one in the future. A year ago, we decided to abandon taking “political” positions. Advocacy for victim’s financial rights had been a central mission of the SSP since its founding and so it was hard to let that go. A pillar of the “old” SSP’s advocacy mission was opposition to many of the features of some of the casualty company programs. Therefore, many people are confused that we don’t have a dog in this fight. Everyone expects the SSP to rush out and take its normal spot in the circular firing squad and start blastng away or at least provide the forum for a mob to form. I’m sorry to disappoint people but we are neutral - on the AIG Class Action Lawsuit or any political issue such as single claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds. Individual SSP members have the option to support or oppose specific political issues. SSP, as an association, however, will not. Our priorities are growth and the promotion of professionalism in the practice of settlement planning - both of which we are accomplishing successfully.

"Dick Risk is a founding member and we once honored him with a lifetime achievement award at which time we granted him lifelong membership. The SSP makes no attempts to muzzle or restrain our members. They are free to think, say, or do what they wish. We used to carefully guard our roll and membership was open only to plaintiff-only structured settlement brokers. Today, membership is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring. Our membership includes a diverse group of structure brokers from most of the larger groups, trust company officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys, plaintiff attorneys and many others.

"Separate from my role as President of SSP, I have my own opinion about the AIG Class Action Lawsuit. Part of my opinion is based upon a lunch I was honored to have in 1997 or 1998 with Hank Greenberg (then CEO of AIG) and Ernie Stempel (then President of North American Operations for AIG Life & Annuity). I remember Mr. Greenberg talking about a huge high-rise building with several floors full of nothing but lawyers. He then informed me AIG spent millions on outside counsel and had other AIG lawyers scattered across the globe. In my opinion, if AIG is right, they are more than adequately equipped to handle this case without help from me or anyone else.

"Another part of my personal opinion is that I hate structured settlement politics and I am not smart enough or educated enough to know which side is right in this lawsuit. It is a fact, however, that many of my clients cannot chose from a full selection of structured settlement products or product providers - and another fact that my market quotes include fewer companies than they did a few years ago. I wish I could still quote Hartford, for example, but we know what happened after their class action settlement. So, although I can see the AIG battle lines forming, I don't have time for the fight myself. I have an appointment with a widow this afternoon and I only wish I could offer her and her freshly fatherless children a greater assortment of structured settlement options. And if a lawsuit against AIG should ever cause American General to withdraw from the structured settlement market, I would have a still shorter list of companies to offer my clients."

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as SSP President. SSP's 2017 Annual Educational Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs is preparing for this event, he agreed to answer a few additional S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. That interview will appear in a follow-up S2KM blog post.

March 24, 2016

Joint overlapping educational conferences hosted by the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) March 9-12, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona provided S2KM and other attendees an opportunity to evaluate the current status of structured settlements within the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market. The SSP conference also transferred association leadership from Neil Johnson to Joe Tombs with Tombs promising to maintain Johnson's leadership direction and to "pull SSP back completely from structured settlement politics."

Among S2KM's conference conclusions: Many personal injury settlement planners characterize structured settlements as a strategic product, and recognize new marketing opportunities for structured settlements resulting from recent legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the ABLE Act . The traditional and collective structured settlement industry should similarly embrace an important opportunity to grow its premium volume in this larger, more complex, more dynamic market than it has in the past by more effectively:

DISCLAIMERS: Because of overlapping conference schedules, S2KM was able to attend only three ASNP presentations but did receive and has reviewed all ASNP conference handouts. S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, testified as an expert witness in the Mraz case concerning structured settlement and QSF issues on behalf of Adriana and Addison Mraz.

S2KM COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SSP Leadership

In his closing message as SSP President, Neil Johnson continued to emphasize several positive themes including industry unification and increasing collaboration between SSP and NSSTA. Among Johnson's proposed solutions for industry unity: 1) recognizing and accepting product diversity; 2) focusing on client and customer service; 3) identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues; 4) engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues; 5) improving relationships among stakeholder groups; 6) promoting and practicing settlement planning not settlement selling.

Newly elected SSP President Joe Tombs promised to "maintain the direction of Neil Johnson's leadership and even accelerate it in every way possible." He identified the following "main themes" for SSP going forward: "to pull completely back from structured settlement “politics”, redouble our efforts at educating our members and promoting a Code of Ethics, and a membership push to quadruple our high water mark for number of members. We intend to actively encourage our members who sell structured settlement to join and to become actively engaged in NSSTA. We will continue to offer a hand of friendship and cooperation in their agenda although we will be decidedly apolitical. We will also make no attempt no manage our member’s opinions or their expressions of their opinions."

As for structured settlements, Tombs stated: "we intend to emphasize comprehensive settlement planning which will have the natural result of de-emphasizing structured settlement annuities to some extent as we move alternatives including trusts, taxable annuities, investment accounts, etc. closer to the forefront. We will be increasingly product-neutral and more advice-driven and client-need-focused in the future."Note: despite Tombs' assertion, and perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, multiple SSP conference speakers maintained that settlement trust sales, in particular, have actually increased their sales of structured settlement annuities.

Tombs also promised "to intensify [SSP's] efforts to stave off any further “infiltration" of our society by factoring companies and their employees. We will want to remain abreast of the goings on in that market as we have always attempted, but as a practical matter we are cutting off any new members or sponsors from that side of things."

Although NSSTA has made reports of all three surveys available to its members, and featured presentations about Part 1 and Part 2 at previous NSSTA educational conferences, NSSTA has not yet featured its Part 3 survey of plaintiff attorneys as an educational conference presentation. NSSTA has also prioritized "rejuvenating defense programs" as one of three preliminary "Growth Initiatives" with no equivalent current Growth Initiative focused specifically on plaintiff attorneys or personal injury settlement planning.

Less than 25% are likely to have a client sign a letter acknowledging that they were exposed to the opportunity to structure a portion of their settlement before opting for an all cash settlement.

Although 89% believe they "have adequate knowledge of structured settlements so that [they are] able to recognize when they would be in the best interest of an injured party...", only 28% said they suggest a structured settlement for cases involving Medicare set-asides (MSAs).

Only 26% have ever structured their fees.

Settlement Planning - A Special Needs Perspective

Most presentations by special needs attorneys at structured settlement conferences focus exclusively on special needs trusts. As one result, many structured settlement professionals fail to understand the broad and expanding scope of special needs planning - or how it impacts, overlaps with and differs from personal injury settlement planning. A similar misconception exists among special needs attorneys many of whom identify financial and insurance settlement planners exclusively with structured settlements. The title of the one joint SSP/ASNP presentation in Tucson ("Structured Settlements and Special Needs Trusts") re-enforced this misconception. Fortunately and positively, the actual presentation discussion, moderated my Jack Meligan and featuring Frank Johns and Joe Tombs, addressed a broader agenda.

Separately, both the ASNP and SSP conferences featured multiple presentations which captured the expanding expertise of their respective members. For structured settlement professionals, S2KM found ASNP's two "Pre-Session" presentations ("The ABCs of Public Benefits" by David Lillesand and "The ABCs of Special Needs and Settlement Planning" by Kevin Urbatsch and Michele Fuller) especially informative. Also recommended for structured settlement professionals seeking a more comprehensive understanding of special needs planning: Blaine Brockman's presentation ("Recent Trends in Special Needs Planning"),

Urbatsch and Fuller speak and write frequently about personal injury settlement planning and are recognized as leading national settlement planning experts among special needs attorneys. Their settlement planning presentations frequently discuss structured settlement "issues" - often with negative connotations and without rebuttal or explanations from structured settlement experts. What follows are structured settlement "issues" Urbatsch and Fuller identified in Tucson. In S2KM's experience: 1) many special needs attorneys agree with these issues; and 2) structured settlement proponents need to proactively respond to these issues - or risk continuing/increasing loss of potential annuity premium:

"Income stream is inflexible and cannot respond to emergency or major cash needs;

"High initial fees;

"Investment returns nearly always lower than what a diversified portolio would produce;

"Big ticket items, such as a home, cannot be easily acquired;

"Unscrupulous settlement planning brokers over-structuring because of high commission;

The Grillo case, which establishes potential legal liability for plaintiff attorneys who do not advise their clients about structured settlements, was the subject of an SSP conference presentation by Craig and Josephine (Grillo) Sullivan. The Sullivans shared the remarkable life story of their daughter, Christina, the Foundation she inspired and the Texas State Statutory amendment her case helped to enact.

For structured settlement brokers and settlement planners, the Grillo case provides a logical starting point for discussing structured settlements with plaintiff attorneys. As a point of comparison, consider response #5 above under "Marketing Feedback - NSSTA Survey of Plaintiff Attorneys."

Another important settlement planning "takeaway" from the Sullivans' SSP presentation: both Craig and Josephine emphasized the value of Christina's original life care plan which served as a care management "roadmap" throughout Christina's life accurately predicting future needs and developments which the Sullivans would not otherwise have anticipated.

This important observation, provided by the only care givers to appear as speakers at the combined SSP/ASNP conferences highlights an important settlement planning issue: Why do other settlement planning professionals ignorelife care planners - especially considering their strategic role defining "future needs" for personal injury damage analysis, as well as future expense allocations for Medicare set-asides and Affordable Care Act coverage? For examples:

As leading nurse life care planner Wendie Howland stated in this 2014 S2KM interview: "I have never been asked to review a settlement plan to see how well it matches my recommendations."

"Comprehensive" settlement plans S2KM has reviewed typically don't include any life care plan, or other document, providing a detailed "needs analysis".

With the exception of the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP), a majority of whose members are life care planners, none of the many structured settlement or settlement planning conferences S2KM has attended during the past several years has offered specific presentations addressing the topic of "needs analysis" - or, with rare exceptions, featured a life care planner as presenter.

Key related issues: 1) what does "needs analysis" mean in the settlement planning context? Who is qualified, if not life care planners, to provide "needs analysis" for settlement planning? What is the relationship between a life care plan prepared for trial (damage analysis) and a life care plan for settlement planning? Who, besides a life care planner, is qualified to transpose one to the other?

The Mraz Case

The traditional objective and responsibility for plaintiff attorneys in personal injury cases has been to obtain the largest amount of compensation for their clients whether by judgment or settlement. By this standard, the law firm Lief, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein was notably successful in obtaining a $55 million verdict and subsequent $24 million settlement in 2009 against Chrysler in the Mraz wrongful death case.

Settlement planning, in general, and structured settlements, more specifically, however, prioritize an additional set of objectives and responsibilities for plaintiff attorneys. As a result, when the Lief, Cabraser law firm failed to obtain a structured settlement for Addison Mraz, the minor daughter of the deceased, after her mother, Adriana Mraz, allegedly requested Lief, Cabraser to obtain a structured settlement on Addison's behalf, Adriana brought a lawsuit alleging Lief, Cabraser attorneys breached the duty of care they owed to Addison.

On December 22, 2015, among other findings, a California trial court jury determined Lief, Cabraser attorneys did not breach the standard of care or any fiduciary duty they owed Addison Mraz. Nevertheless, unrelated to damages associated to the loss of the structured settlement, the jury awarded Addison Mraz $400,000 of fees and costs she previously paid to Lief, Cabraser. The case is currently on appeal.

Mark Wilson, the attorney who represented Adriana and Addison Mraz in their lawsuit against Lief, Cabraser, was a featured speaker at the SSP conference. Based upon the Marz case, and regardless of what occurs on appeal, Wilson highlighted the following structured settlement responsibilities as potential duties of care for plaintiff attorneys and recommended that structured settlement professionals and settlement planners utilize CLE programs to educate plaintiff attorneys about their potential liabilities. Plaintiff attorneys should:

Educate themselves about structured settlement issues including how to avoid constructive receipt as well as the appropriate utilization of QSFs and non-qualified assignments.

If and when necessary, know how to correct mistakes to preserve or re-establish their clients' structured settlement options.

Plaintiff Broker Diversification

The most successful plaintiff structured settlement brokers appear to be diversifying their products and services. It works, according to SSP speaker Anthony Prieto, "because it changes the conversation from a marketing perspective. There are a lot more people who want to talk to me about updates in MSP compliance or lien resolution than structured settlements. You see more cases when you offer other services. You become a problem solver as opposed to a problem identifier."

Consistent with the themes of "diversification" and "changing the conversation", John Darer made a convincing case for "transition expertise" as a critical settlement planning skill.

What potential professional liability issues accompany plaintiff broker product and service diversification? The SSP conference did not directly address this issue comprehensively.

Speaking about "ELNYandFactoringIndustry Lawsuits", attorney Edward Stone asserted that the "New Normal" (i.e. personal injury settlement planning) will not work if the core product (i.e. structured settlements) does not work. Focusing specifically on structured settlements, Stone asked whether a broker (plaintiff and/or defendant) owed any duty of care - and to whom? Also whether split commission arrangements changed the analysis? Based upon ELNY, he offered several related lessons for settlement planners.

Insurance law expert David Childers provided SSP conference attendees with a traditional analysis of standards of care and duties of care for insurance brokers, agents and producers under Arizona law.

CONCLUSION: Personal injury settlement planning is a large, complex, dynamic marketplace within which structured settlements historically has represented a strategic, if arguably under performing, product. The traditional structured settlement industry has heretofore avoided the educational analysis and strategic association relationships necessary to help its "New Generation" membership successfully transition to the "New Normal". It remains to be seen whether, when and how successfully future industry leadership will figure out how to put old wine in new bottles. Based upon this year's joint SSP/ASNP conference (and mixing metaphors), it appears the "New Normal" train is already leaving the station with a diversified cargo of blended products and services.

December 28, 2015

The 2015 structured settlement marketplace could perhaps best be characterized as "changing the focus of our future" as industry leaders cooperated to create a positive future agenda to overcome, or move beyond, multiple challenges that continued to negatively impact both primary and secondary market performance metrics.

Elements of the future agenda: 1) a shift in the traditional "protect and preserve" focus of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) toward an expanded priority of identifying structured settlement growth opportunities; 2) increasing industry unity evidenced by improved communication and cooperation among NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP); 3) consumer protection amendments to multiple state structured settlement protection statutes; 4) expanding educational offerings with programs that specifically target judges as well as new industry participants; 5) public relations investments to help counteract negative industry publicity; and 6) further development and growth of a professional personal injury settlement planning market.

Primary Market Growth

In a recent S2KM interview, Michael Goodman, current NSSTA President, offered a personal estimate of $8 to $10 billion per year of annuity premium as the potential size of the U.S. structured settlement market.

The U.S. primary structured settlement market, however, has never approached that annual figure and, in fact, has experienced a significant decline since its peak of $6.2 billion in 2008. To better understand and reverse this decline, NSSTA has re-focused its priorities on expanding the use of structured settlements.

As a first step in 2014, in partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA completed a three-part structured settlement survey project of senior claims executives (Part 1), claims professionals (Part 2) and plaintiff attorneys (Part 3) the results of which provided NSSTA members with marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

During 2015 NSSTA organized an "Industry Growth Initiative" to effectuate Goodman's number one priority of "identifying growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry." This Initiative is focusing on three preliminary growth opportunities:

Although NSSTA's renewed focus on industry growth has not yet noticeably improved primary market metrics, an important psychological and organizational foundation has been created which should enhance future performance.

Industry Unity

One significant factor which arguably has hurt the structured settlement industry has been the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense brokers as well as the primary and secondary markets and which has resulted in three professional associations (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) frequently at odds with each other.

In the words of former SSP President Neil Johnson: Lack of structured settlement industry unity has been "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive."

During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, SSP and NASP expanded prior educational dialogue which began in 2014 at NSSTA's Fall Educational Conference which served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

SSP's 2015 Annual Conference included an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives of NSSTA and NASP.

During the NASP 2015 Annual Conference , Robin Shapiro moderated an historic "President's Panel" featuring LaBorde and Goodman during which they announced a collaborative NSSTA and NASP legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

No forum shopping.

Payee required to attend hearing.

Stricter application of approval requirements.

Advanced notice of transfer.

Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Personal Injury Settlement Planning

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by many stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Based upon studies by Towers Watson, S2KM has previously estimated that more than $170 billion of current annual United States tort costs (excluding workers compensation) represents payments to injury victims and their attorneys compared with a projected $5.4 billion of structured settlement premium (including workers compensation) for 2015.

S2KM has followed the development of personal injury settlement planning during 2015 by reporting on a number of professional conferences peripheral to the traditional structured settlement market:

As NSSTA continues to evaluate options for growing its market, a new generation of leaders should more carefully analyze how to re-position their product as a fundamental component of post- Affordable Care Act personal injury settlement planning . This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

Secondary Structured Settlement Market

During her association'sAnnual Conference, NASP President Patricia LaBorde described 2015 as "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges". NASP's "challenges" included:

Two blistering exposes of "worst case" secondary market business practices which appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post on August 25 and December 27;

An estimated 7% decline in the number of secondary market transfers compared with 2014;

A market "leader" (J.G. Wentworth, with an estimated 65-72% of the U.S. secondary structured settlement market) whose stock price has plummeted to $1.82 per share as of December 28, 2015 down from its historic high of $19.59 on February 28, 2014; and

Judicial decisions such as In re: Rains, a Texas case enforcing a statutory "no-split" payment provision and establishing a new and extensive "best interest" precedent.

The successes included the proactive and collaborative legislative strategy developed by NASP and NSSTA to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. The first success resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute which LaBorde characterized as NASP's "biggest victory since the Model Act", because it overturned the result of the Brenston case and re-opened the Illinois secondary market,

Also during the NASP conference, Goodman and LaBorde jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

April 23, 2015

In a recent article titled "Time for Congress to Reform Structured Settlements", published April 20, 2015 in the Congress Blog, attorney Richard Risk alleges "Congress’ noble goal of supporting accident victims has been upended by the current system in which insurers and their consultants often deceptively rig structured settlements against accident victims."

To "clean up" the primary structured settlement market, Risk recommends that Congress or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should take action against "abusive practices" in the structured settlement industry and, "at a minimum", these reforms should include:

"Ensure victims have better access to their own structure consultants."

"Require diversification in large cases."

"Demand better disclosure from the defense."

Even assuming Risk's prognosis is correct, his proposed governmental solution is not - at least not for injury victims who are represented by legal counsel. Each of the three "reforms" Risk highlights falls squarely within the fiduciary role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys which encompass settlement planning and negotiation as well as litigation.

In the past, many plaintiff attorneys have relied on defendants and their advisors to make structured settlement proposals and to provide expertise regarding structured settlements. This practice was and continues to be a mistake and could be considered professional malpractice.

Plaintiff attorneys should never rely exclusively on the defense for structured settlement advice. Defense attorneys, structured settlement brokers and other consultants working on the defense side are not engaged to work for the plaintiff or to advise the plaintiff’s attorney. Defense settlement objectives are to secure a full release for all defendants and related parties at a reasonable cost.

A broad range of professionals, including structured settlement consultants, currently provides settlement planning related services to plaintiffs and their attorneys. Most structured settlement consultants belong to one of two primary market structured settlement associations: the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) or the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP).

NSSTA and SSP share a divisive political history which may explain, in part, the indirect critique of NSSTA (whose members are meeting this week in Washington, D.C.) that envelops the article by Risk, an SSP member. Whether intentional or not, Risk's article appears to represent a step backward from recent attempts by leaders of both associations to unify the primary structured settlement market.

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 Conference, for example, SSP President Neil Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss at the SSP 2015 Annual Conference in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: lack ofstructured settlementindustry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Many structured settlement professionals increasingly recognize the need to acknowledge and address structured settlement industry problems - including the need to improve primary and secondary business practices and standards. Relatively few industry participants, however, are likely to support Risk's proposal for federal legislation and/or regulation to attempt to force defendants to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities plaintiff attorneys owe to their own clients.

A better solution, in S2KM's opinion, would encompass a combination of structured settlement industry self-regulation and improved education of plaintiff attorneys (and consultants themselves) about the client benefits and professional responsibilities associated with structured settlements in the context of personal injury settlement planning. This solution represents both an opportunity and a challenge for a new generation of structured settlement leaders.

For more detailed analysis about the role and responsibilities of plaintiff attorneys in structured settlements, see chapter 5 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).

April 05, 2015

The Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) hosted its 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with an unprecedented number of structured settlement association leaders as speakers and attendees including representatives from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP). For a list of SSPspeakers and topics, see this prior S2KM blog post.

In his keynote address, SSP President Neil Johnson re-affirmed SSP's traditional commitment to "open dialogue" of industry issues with a mandate for "healthy, respectful discussion of all industry issues, controversial or not - rejecting the the temptation to sweep the uncomfortable under the carpet."

While seeking to engage all perspectives to identify shared permanent interests and discuss industry problems and issues, Johnson acknowledged and accepted that conference attendees would not agree on all issues - and they did not.

Some of the issues discussed:

The need for structured settlement industry unity - encompassing education and, in some situations, political lobbying.

How NSSTA and NASP are collaborating to improve state structured settlement protection statutes.

Improving public relations by first acknowledging and addressing structured settlement primary and secondary market problems.

The uniqueness of the structured settlement product and the need for better primary market self-regulation.

The impact of "fiduciary standards" on settlement planning and the future of structured settlements.

Collaborative primary/secondary market strategies for addressing "the darker side of factoring".

Settlement planning as an important and distinctive growth strategy for structured settlements.

Financial planners - a competitive threat or the next generation of structured settlement consultants and settlement planners?

The inevitability and risks of "off-shore" settlement planning products in a globalized world.

Lessons learned from the Executive Life debacle for claimants and their attorneys and advisors.

How settlement planners and structured settlement consultants misuse life care planners and life care plans.

The Social Security Administration's recent hostility toward special needs trusts (SNTs) and what it means for structured settlements.

How and why settlement planners must learn to take control of the Medicare set-aside (MSA) process.

The explosion of multi-claimant QSFs - a missed market for structured settlements?

None of these issues were resolved in Las Vegas. What did occur was a healthy exchange of ideas among leaders of historic structured settlement adversaries (NSSTA, SSP and NASP) with active participation from leaders of other settlement planning associations. The result: a unique industry gathering as much like a diplomatic conference as an educational event.

With NSSTA's President, Executive Director, and several members of its Board of Directors in attendance, whether and how NSSTA (as well as NASP) and its members will respond remains uncertain. NSSTA helped to initiate a more open industry dialogue during its own Fall 2014 Educational Conference by inviting SSP President Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde to appear as featured speakers.

Structured Settlement Industry Unification

During the NSSTA Fall 2014 conference, Johnson outlined a "Blueprint for Industry Unification" which he and NSSTA President Kevin Silo continued to discuss in Las Vegas in a repeat performance of their "Presidents' Panel". Johnson's appeal for unity characterized "industry disarray" as a "threat to our future." Labeling diversity "good" and disparity "bad", he called for a united front before the public.

In Johnson's words: Lack of structured settlement industry unity is "a drain - a drain on financial resources ... a drain on productivity ... a drain on our public image ... a drain on physical and emotional health. Lack of unity diverts attention from productive projects. It always focuses attention on the negative, never on the positive. Lack of industry unity shows no partiality or favoritism for either NSSTA or SSP."

Both Johnson and Siloexpressed optimism, however, about the future of structured settlements - especially in the context of generational transition. Johnson, in particular, highlighted potential opportunities amidst his self-described industry disparity, including a strengthened resolve and commitment for improvement and growth. According to Johnson and other settlement planners, the structured settlement industry needs a wakeup call - a fresh look and reevaluation that includes, but extends beyond, NSSTA's "protect and preserve" orientation.

Identifying and pursuing permanent shared interests without necessarily agreeing on all issues.

Engaging all perspectives to discuss industry problems and issues.

Promoting and practicing settlement planning with the structured settlement annuity as a core strategic product.

The Future of SSP

Throughout its 15 year history, SSP has punched beyond its weight class. Born out of a troublesome recognition that the structured settlement playing field was seriously tilted to the disadvantage of plaintiffs and their advisors, SSP has helped bring respect and professionalism to the plaintiff side of the table by emphasizing "settlement planning", not "settlement selling".

Recognizing the strategic role of structured settlements, settlement planning nonetheless seeks the "best interest" of its injury victim clients and includes multiple products and multiple experts.

Despite these accomplishments, and perhaps because of them, SSP's future as an association is uncertain. NSSTA has more plaintiff structured settlement brokers than SSP and has been more successful in adding a new generation of members.

Other, well-organized, non-structured settlement professionals, such as special needs attorneys and life care planners, increasingly focus their marketing, educational programs and work product on settlement planning using SNTs and MSAs as their gateway.

As was evident in Las Vegas, however, SSP continues to raise the educational bar for an entire industry of settlement professionals. Settlement planning remains an evolving profession - largely unregulated with few industry standards. The ultimate role and growth potential for structured settlements within the settlement planning market have not yet been determined.

SSP's ability to organize an educational conference where an unprecedented cross-section of industry leaders engaged in civil discussions about strategic industry issues suggests SSP has an important continuing role within both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets.

March 16, 2015

The U.S. structured settlement industry consists of three national professional associations - the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) - whose political differences frequently obscure their shared existential interests and, until recently, have restricted their opportunities for mutually-beneficial collaborative education.

NSSTA's 2014Fall Educational Conference highlighted the issues of "generational change and challenges" and served as a precursor for improved association relationships by featuring SSP President Neil Johnson and NASP President Patricia LaBorde as guest speakers.

The SSP2015 Annual Conference, to be held March 29-31 in Las Vegas will substantially expand this new educational chapter of industry dialogue by hosting an unprecedented number of association leaders as speakers. Among the highlights will be a repeat engagement of NSSTA's 2014 "Presidents' Panel" featuring current NSSTA President Kevin Silo and SSP President Johnson. Titled "Collaboration for the Greater Good", and moderated by Patrick Hindert, this panel promises to "doubledown" on solutions for achieving industry unity.

Additional association leaders scheduled to speak at the SSP Conference:

Eric Vaughn - NSSTA's Executive Director is expected to emphasize the shared interests of all structured settlement professionals including plaintiff and defense representatives as well primary and secondary market participants. These shared interests being the protection and preservation of IRC sections 104(a)(2) and 130 plus the future growth of the primary market.

Jack Kelly - NASP's lobbyist, who also spoke at last year's SSP conference, will provide his perspective on political changes taking place in Washington D.C. and how they might impact structured settlements.

Kevin Urbatsch - The National Director of the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP) recently introduced and helped organize ASNP 12-part "Settlement Planning" webinar series. In Las Vegas, Urbatsch will address recent attacks by the Social Security Administration on litigation-generated special needs trusts.

Wendie Howland - Editor of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planning (AANLCP) Journal, Ms. Howland will discuss settlement planning from a life care planning perspective. She will highlight the increasing role of life care planners in allocating damages for Medicare set-asides (MSAs) and as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In addition, she will advise structured settlement consultants and settlement planners how to better utilize life care plans to improve their own work product.

Additional SSP speakers and topics:

Joseph Dehner - A prominent international attorney and co-author of the legal textbook "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payments", Dehner will discuss "Off-Shore Funding Companies" and their increasing role in the structured settlement market.

Edward Stone - A legal representative for many Executive Life of New York short-fall victims who continues to seek restitution for his clients, Stone will offer his opinion as to whether some settlement planners remain at risk in the ongoing ELNY litigation.

Bryn Poland - A leading Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) expert, who has served as attorney, trustee and/or administrator for numerous QSFs, Ms Poland will explain how and why the multi-claimant QSF market is growing rapidly despite the single claimant pullback within the structured settlement market.

For S2KM's reporting about prior structured settlement and settlement planning professional conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

December 22, 2014

During the late 1970s, and throughout the 1980s, when defendants retained exclusive control of structured settlements, many brokers and their liability insurance company clients referred to unsuccessful sales as "cash outs". Their professional interests and curiosity were narrowly defined and focused upon their own product to the exclusion of other settlement related products and services.

With the advent of plaintiff structured settlement brokers, continuing legislative and regulatory developments, plus an expanding array of settlement planning professionals, products and product providers, structured settlements are now viewed by most stakeholders as a subset of the larger and more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

For future success, a new generation of structured settlement leaders must look beyond structured settlements and learn to re-position their product as a fundamental and catalytic settlement planning component. This strategic adjustment requires a more comprehensive understanding of, and interaction with, other professional associations whose members also provide settlement planning products and services.

During 2014, S2KM attended 13 national educational conferences sponsored by such professional associations. What follows are 2014 summaries, from a settlement planning perspective, of the educational programs offered by these professional associations plus links to related S2KM reporting. Prior S2KM blog posts provide 2014 summaries of the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. A subsequent S2KM blog post will summarize continuing 2014 developments related to ELNY and Reliance.

Recommending appropriate settlement planning professional resources to their clients; and

Retaining ultimate responsibility for effectuating settlements.

As one result, plaintiff attorneys represent the primary marketing target for for companies and professionals offering settlement planning services. Seven primary market brokers, one structured settlement annuity provider and one factoring company were among the 141 sponsors and exhibitors at the AAJ 2014 Annual Conference which also included companies offering lien resolution, MSA compliance, life care planning, legal finance and economic consulting services.

Notable features of the 2014 AAJ conferences:

AAJ's educational programs focused on litigation issues with no structured settlement, no Affordable Care Act (ACA) and almost no settlement planning presentations.

By inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak at its members-only 2014 Fall Educational Conference, NSSTA took a symbolic step toward restoring its original vision as articulated by David Ringler, NSSTA's first president: "a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA."

For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. NSSTA's near-sighted strategy has limited the potential growth of structured settlements within the larger and more complex settlement planning market and created multiple challenges for the next generation of structured settlement leaders.

Assuming settlement planning includes adjustments during an injury victim's lifetime, structured settlement transfer (factoring) companies should be included among settlement planning participants. Like NSSTA, its primary market counterpart, NASP and its members face serious challenges which NASP president Patricia LaBorde acknowledged during NASP's 2014 Annual Conference.

"There are some forces working against us right now" Laborde stated, "and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity." These "negative" forces include predicted secondary market "chaos" resulting from the Washington Square v. RSL case as well as market restrictions resulting from anti-assignment lawsuits.

Shared educational dialogue among representatives of NASP, NSSTA and SSP during 2014 appear to support the possibility of increasing primary and secondary market integration as predicted by Peter Arnold during his NASP conference presentation.

ASNP is one of three national associations of attorneys whose members practice special needs (SN) planning. SN planning encompasses individuals with congenital and developmental defects, as well as personal injury victims, and therefore represents a parallel market which overlaps with personal injury settlement planning.

For the past eight years, ASNP has sponsored some of the best educational programs addressing settlement planning topics including such fundamental issues as: "know your client", "needs analysis", "best practices", "industry standards" and "product suitability", as well as "professional responsibility, qualifications and liability".

Expanding its settlement planning educational programs, ASNP is currently sponsoring a 12-part settlement planning webinar series which demonstrates both the growing importance of settlement planning for SN attorneys as well as the broad scope of settlement planning topics.

NAMSAP is the only national professional association whose singular focus is Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) arrangements. NAMSAP's growth has paralleled the expansion of workers compensation MSAs (WCMSAs) to satisfy the requirements of the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. Enacted in 1980, the MSP Act requires certain insurers, including liability, automobile, no-fault and workers compensation insurers, to make payment first for services to Medicare beneficiaries regarding claimed injuries, with Medicare responsible only as a “secondary payer.”

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a WCMSA Reference Guide (WCRG) on March 29, 2013 plus a WCRG Version 2.0 on November 7, 2013. Both address structured settlement issues and provide guidelines for their utilization. WCMSAs represent one of the few submarkets where structured settlements sales have increased since 2008 - in large part because the method CMS requires for calculating WCMSA present values provides an inherent cost advantage for annuities compared with lump sum alternatives.

CMS withdrew its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to liability MSAs in October 2014 because it failed to gain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Therefore, settlement planners must continue to analyze each liability case individually to determine whether and how to protect Medicare's interests.

During NAMSAP's 2014 Regional Conference, Roy Franco predicted the following settlement planning changes likely to result from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, implementation of the ACA and the still anticipated CMS rules for liability MSAs: "workers' compensation, liability and no-fault insurers will all become primary payers vis a vis Medicare, Medicaid and ACA health providers" as part of integrated settlement planning models similar to WCMSAs." Franco added, however, that different state models are likely to develop as a result of both state-specific collateral source rules and the new Medicaid reimbursement rules promulgated by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

Organized "to provide a forum for open dialogue that helps shape industry developments", the 2014 Evolve QSF Symposium avoided the single claimant controversy and focused instead on other important QSF and settlement planning issues including:

NAELA was the first and remains the largest U.S. professional association focused on the needs of elder and special needs law attorneys. Responding to its own strategic challenges, NAELA organized its 2014 Annual Conference to address what it perceives to be its two primary strategic issues: 1) the future needs of persons with disabilities; and 2) the future of elder law.

Compared with ASNP, however, NAELA's educational programs rarely address settlement planning or structured settlements. When NAELA members discuss special needs planning, many tend to think about developmental (as opposed to personal injury) disabilities. Unfortunately, many NAELA members view structured settlements negatively despite familiarity with the concept and a general affinity for annuities.

November 20, 2014

The National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) celebrated its 10th annual conference November 5-6, 2014 in San Antonio, Texas with record attendance, recognition of past accomplishments and a clear existential message from its president Patricia LaBorde: "NASP exists to insure there will be a secondary structured settlement market for at least the NEXT 10 years".

NASP's 2014 educational conference followed by one week an historic NSSTA conference, which featured, for the first time, the presidents of NASP (LaBorde) and SSP (Neil Johnson) as speakers. LaBorde acknowledged this development in her opening NASP remarks stating: "we want to hear NSSTA's criticism and for the first time, they appear to want to hear ours." She expressed surprise and concern, however, about how little NSSTA members appear to understand about the secondary market including several basic misconceptions.

To underscore both NASP's "survival" theme and the need for improved education about the secondary market, LaBorde added: "there are some forces working against us right now and we need to remain diligent so our customers (structured settlement recipients who sell payment rights to NASP member companies) continue to have access to liquidity."

Kelly reviewed structured settlement protection statute activities in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi and declared NASP's 2014 state legislative lobbying a success. Kelly highlighted Florida and Wisconsin as states where NASP and NSSTA could collaborate to improve existing legislation. At the federal level, Kelly addressed H.R. 3897 and the July 23, 2014 "Consumer Protection for People with Disabilities" Congressional symposium which included a panel discussion about "factoring structured settlements".

Echoing LaBorde's comments about NSSTA, Kelly expressed his concern about "fact vs fiction" as to what happens and what benefits transfers provide for structured settlement recipients who experience unexpected or unaddressed financial needs. Emphasizing "no secondary market transaction can occur without a primary market transaction", Kelly criticized any development or activity that causes Congress to relook at IRC 130 and 104(a)(2). Speaking the morning after the 2014 election, Kelly labeled the Republican victory a political "tsunami" and the odds on new tax legislation in 2015 as a "toss up".

Case Law Update

For the uninitiated, Nesbitt prefaced his secondary market case law summary with several applicable "lessons": if you don't pay a seller the agreed amount, you will have trouble; courts take the "best interest" standard seriously; sometimes the prudent action is to dismiss a proposed transfer and move on; if you don't get what you want, don't move to another court or arbitration; words in a contract matter and words in a court order matter more; although rare in Texas, sometimes it rains (it did in San Antonio) and sometimes RSL Funding (formerly Rapid Settlements) wins cases.

Washington Square v. RSL

Among several significant cases, Nesbitt gave top billing to Washington Square v. RSL Funding wherein transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".

Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

Acknowledging this case represents a "big win" for RSL, Nesbitt also predicted "chaos" for the secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. Subsequent NASP panels of transfer attorneys and judges, as well as sidebar discussions with angry representatives of companies outbid by competitors, confirmed Nesbitt prediction and suggested a strategic marketing shift is already occurring among transfer companies.

Brenston Case

In a separate presentation, Nesbitt reviewed the Peachtree Settlement Funding v. Brenston case and its case law "progeny". In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, which Illinois Circuit Courts had approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.

The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

An Amicus curiae brief filed by NASP with the Illinois Supreme Court stated: "Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market....Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

As NASP predicted, the denial of Peachtree's petition for review was quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including J.G. Wentworth and Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

As a result of Brenston, according to Nesbitt:

Many Illinois structured settlement recipients lack liquidity options because many transfer companies are avoiding the state.

Some transfers continue to be completed in Illinois when all interested parties agree to waive existing anti-assignment language.

Some annuity providers, however, will not waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

Attorneys for some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

Discounted PV and Applicable Federal Rate

The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" linked to "the most recently published Applicable Federal Rate for determining the present value of an annuity, as issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service." This rate is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Nesbitt concluded his conference presentations with a detailed critique of NCOIL's discounted PV definition and explained why NASP believes this definition confuses rather than informs state judges.

Pery Krinsky, an ethics-based defense attorney who serves as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Discipline of the N.Y. County Lawyers' Association, spoke about legal ethics issues. He did not mention Paris & Chaiken, a New York law firm accused of falsifying court orders approving structured settlement transfers, which has reportedly retained Krinsky as outside ethics counsel for assistance with these cases.

Judicial Panel - "Best interest" considerations; multiple transactions; common mistakes by petitioners; privacy issues; discount rates; independent professional advisors. The judges also were encouraged to identify questions for the audience - and did so. All three judges expressed a need and interest for additional education about the secondary market.

Alexander Hamilton Award

NASP honored James Lokey as the 2014 recipient of its Alexander Hamilton Award. Lokey completed the first transfer of structured settlement payment rights in 1986 thereby launching the secondary market. NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award seven times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights." NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business.

November 12, 2014

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.

Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.

Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

"NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.

CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.